Republicans are taking away my unemployment for my own good.

[burunduk34]

@andros

Or that I was, yanno, hyperbolizing for effect?

Oh, I see. Well, then, am I allowed to say, for example, that you’re convicted murdering pedophile, and then, when unable to submit any proof of that, say that I was , yanno, just hyperbolizing? For effect, no harm done.

@andros

But sure, fine. It obviously struck a nerve, so you have my apologies.

Yes, it did struck the nerve. You claimed something I didn’t say. When asked for proof, you asked me whether I was drinking, rolled your eyes, and submitted “proof”–a quote of mine that didn’t contain a single word about either morality or immorality of unemployment benefits.

@andros

My use of the term “moral contagion” was hyperbole.

You’re a murderous pedophile. Hyperbolically. Or not, if I find the proof or roll my eyes or maybe inquire whether you’re under influence of meth.

@andros

While it seems quite clear based on his record that Senator Paul believes unemployment benefits to involve morality and moral decay, you did not explicitly discuss the matter. I apologize unreservedly.

I accept your apology, even though I had to drag it out of you with hot pincers.
But, please, please, in the future, try to refrain from lying on our board. Thank you.

@andros

However, your ginned-up faux outrage over my choice of words does not change the fact that in your eagerness to support Paul you misrepresented Krugman. Again, please do your best to avoid doing that in the future. Thanks!

Once again, I asked you to stop lying, but yet, you continue to do so. Please stop. I haven’t misrepresented Krugman. He most certainly does support curtailing of unemployment benefits, since ** “Generous unemployment benefits can increase both structural and frictional unemployment” ** .
Now, of course, we can argue what defines “generous unemployment benefits”, but when the said benefits exceed the minimum wage or even (in case of 15 states) are more than twice than the minimum wage, that’s pretty generous, IMO. Getting more money by not working, than working, is a an incentive not to work.

Of course, we can also argue which Krugman we’re supposed to believe–the Krugman of 2009 and 2010 or the Krugman of 2013, but that’s an exercise in futility.

It’s like debating the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout and arguing that the Krugman of 2007, the staunch opponent of the said bailout was correct, while the Krugman of 2008, the staunch supporter of the same bailout, was wrong. Or vise versa.

[burunduk34]

@GIGObuster

Or supersedes

Or contradicts.

[andros]

Well, your mad trolling skillz need some work, sweetness. You’re pretty good, don’t get me wrong…but not great. Keep practicing, though!

[GIGObuster]

@burunduk34

Once again, I asked you to stop lying, but yet, you continue to do so. Please stop. I haven’t misrepresented Krugman. He most certainly does support curtailing of unemployment benefits, since ** “Generous unemployment benefits can increase both structural and frictional unemployment” ** .
Now, of course, we can argue what defines “generous unemployment benefits”, but when the said benefits exceed the minimum wage or even (in case of 15 states) are more than twice than the minimum wage, that’s pretty generous, IMO. Getting more money by not working, than working, is a an incentive not to work.

Of course, we can also argue which Krugman we’re supposed to believe–the Krugman of 2009 and 2010 or the Krugman of 2013, but that’s an exercise in futility.

It’s like debating the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout and arguing that the Krugman of 2007, the staunch opponent of the said bailout was correct, while the Krugman of 2008, the staunch supporter of the same bailout, was wrong. Or vise versa.

The dumb thing is not to see the conditional that even Krugman is telling you, it is like the old fashion “a rising tide lifts all boats” saying, the Krugman of 2009 and 2010 is generalizing and looking at unemployment when the tide is lifting or normal.

When the tide is low this does not work as before, you are like a boat owner that can not picture that your boat is grounded now and expecting to be able to go out to sea just as before.

The point stands, if you are willing to use an economist like Krugman, you can not ignore what he and many other economists are recommending to do when the tide of employment is still low. It is like asking why the skipper of the boat is so unreasonable and contradictory because he told you a few days ago that at going to sea was ok in the morning. Like a typical creationist or climate change denier you are missing a few variables.

[burunduk34]

@GIGObuster

The dumb thing is not to see the conditional that even Krugman is telling you.

I’m sorry, are you just making this up?
I’m looking at Economics, 2nd Edition, by Paul Krugman and Robin Wells, from whence the original Krugman quote came and there’s nothing conditional in his statement that I previously quoted. None.

[burunduk34]

@andros

Well, your mad trolling skillz need some work, sweetness. You’re pretty good, don’t get me wrong…but not great. Keep practicing, though!

Well, your lying and distorting skills also need some practice.
I imagine it’s pretty embarrassing when not only you had to resort to outright lies, but when caught, to come up with gems like

@andros

There ain’t enough :rolleyes: in the world.

@andros

Are you drinking?

@andros

You are drinking, aren’t you?

before finally finding the courage to apologize.

@andros

I apologize unreservedly.

[GIGObuster]

@burunduk34

I’m sorry, are you just making this up?
I’m looking at Economics, 2nd Edition, by Paul Krugman and Robin Wells, from whence the original Krugman quote came and there’s nothing conditional in his statement that I previously quoted. None.

Do you know the concept of “the word of god”? You are now doing the equivalent of denying him.

The conditional was made on 2013. The point stands, if you want to use him as the one that is correct do not complain when he is telling you what the deal is.

[burunduk34]

@GIGObuster

The conditional was made on 2013.

I don’t think you understand what conditionality means. Far be it from me to give a scientific definition, but it usually involves words like “if”, “unless”, “otherwise”.
Allow me a simple analogy.
You’re going shopping and ask your wife what you should buy. “Onions”, she tells you. Well, you’re driving along and suddenly you realize you forgot what you’re supposed to buy. Fear not! You call the stupid bitch (why couldn’t she give you a piece of paper with the list of necessities?), and she tells you “Buy onions, if they’re below $2 per pound”
You see how it works? The original statement “Don’t forget to buy the onions, you forgetful fuck” was then conditionally augmented with “if”. If. If they’re below per pound. See that if? That’s conditionality…

Now, if, upon calling the wife she told you “DO NOT BUY ONIONS”, that would be contradiction.
Because, she originally stated that you SHOULD buy onions.
It’s the same story here.

We go from:

Generous unemployment benefits can increase both structural and frictional unemployment.

to

*Slashing unemployment benefits — which would have the side effect of reducing incomes and hence consumer spending — would just make the situation worse. *

Please show me exactly where the “ifs”, “howevers”, and “otherwises” are, that allow the first statement stand, without contradicting the second one.

[Lobohan]

@burunduk34

I don’t think you understand what conditionality means. Far be it from me to give a scientific definition, but it usually involves words like “if”, “unless”, “otherwise”.
Allow me a simple analogy.
You’re going shopping and ask your wife what you should buy. “Onions”, she tells you. Well, you’re driving along and suddenly you realize you forgot what you’re supposed to buy. Fear not! You call the stupid bitch (why couldn’t she give you a piece of paper with the list of necessities?), and she tells you “Buy onions, if they’re below $2 per pound”
You see how it works? The original statement “Don’t forget to buy the onions, you forgetful fuck” was then conditionally augmented with “if”. If. If they’re below per pound. See that if? That’s conditionality…

Now, if, upon calling the wife she told you “DO NOT BUY ONIONS”, that would be contradiction.
Because, she originally stated that you SHOULD buy onions.
It’s the same story here.

We go from:

Generous unemployment benefits can increase both structural and frictional unemployment.

to

*Slashing unemployment benefits — which would have the side effect of reducing incomes and hence consumer spending — would just make the situation worse. *

Please show me exactly where the “ifs”, “howevers”, and “otherwises” are, that allow the first statement stand, without contradicting the second one.

I’m sorry you’re so lonely. You can play with us. <3

[GIGObuster]

@Lobohan

I’m sorry you’re so lonely. You can play with us. <3

Yeah, sad really, other opponents just toss the source they relied under the bus ASAP, doubling down just tells me that he does really think that his use of Krugman was clever.

It was not, and I see he has to go to very tortuous analogies when the simple idea that situations change is what is going on, burunduk34 **really **would consider taking the seas to court for daring to be at a low tide now.

[andros]

Hey Happy?

I’d like to apologize for my part in encouraging this crap.